Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race

Oxnard (1984, p. 334-i) stated that the features of the A. afarensis vertebrae reported by Cook and Johanson “are likely to have provided the stress bearing structures necessary to support the actions of very powerful shoulder muscles in climbing and arboreal activities suggested by our prior studies of the scapula and clavicle of other australopithecines.”

C. Owen Lovejoy, a supporter of Johanson, claimed that the afarensis hip was suitable only for upright walking (Johanson and Edey 1981, pp. 347–348). But the afarensis hip structure is significantly different from that in human beings. In particular, Lucy’s iliac blade, like that of other australopithecines, is positioned as in apes (Section 11.8.2, Figure 11.13). Susman said: “Therefore, we are of the opinion that the orientation of the iliac blades in the Hadar species is well-suited for a part-time climber” (Susman et al. 1984, p. 132).

In Scientific American, Lovejoy (1988) reasserted his familiar claims that Lucy’s pelvic structure and musculature were very similar to those of humans. We will not here repeat the detailed demonstrations by Zuckerman, Oxnard, Stern, Susman, and others that the pelvic morphology of A. afarensis had quite a bit in common with arboreal primates, and was better suited for climbing than walking (Section 11.8.2).

What is perhaps most significant about Lovejoy’s presentation is that he does not once directly mention his opponents and their arguments. This adds to our suspicions that the views of Zuckerman, Oxnard, Stern, Susman, Prost, and others are being suppressed for propaganda purposes on the level of secondary presentations for the wider scientific community, educational institutions, and the public in general. The views of the advocates of arboreality for A. afarensis are represented almost solely in the primary level of publication, in the obscure pages of scientific journals intended for specialists. They are, however, not at all well represented in publications like Scientific American, college textbooks on anthropology, and popular books and television programs dealing with the topic of human evolution. Arboreal habits would not look well in the hominid advertised as the oldest known creature directly ancestral to modern humanity.

Femurs from Lucy and the First Family group challenge claims by Johanson and Lovejoy that the lower limb of A. afarensis was distinctly human in morphology and function. Stern and Susman (1983, p. 296) concluded that the proximal (upper) part of Lucy’s femur “probably comes from an individual with the ability to abduct the hip in the manner of pongids,” allowing for “movement in the trees.”

Measurements of several features of the lower (distal) end of the AL 333-4 First Family femur showed it to be outside the human range and within the ranges of chimpanzees, gibbons, and several species of monkeys. In fact “the distal end of the AL 333-4 femur actually appears less human-like than that of a woolly monkey” (Stern and Susman 1983, p. 297).

Christine Tardieu, an anthropologist at the Museum of Natural History in Paris, gave a slightly different assessment of the AL 333-4 distal femur, finding it barely within the modern human range, at “the extreme end closest to the apes” (Stern and Susman 1983, p. 299). Thus, as often happens, we find ourselves confronted with contradictory interpretations of the same fossil material, but on the whole, the femurs in question appear to be apelike.

Tardieu, in addition to measuring the AL 333-4 femur of the First Family group, also conducted studies of the distal femur of Lucy. She gave special attention to the notch in the femur that holds the upper end of the tibia, the larger of the two bones of the lower leg. In humans, the spine of the tibia fits tightly into the notch of the femur. In apes, the fit is looser. In this regard, Lucy is in the range of the gibbon. Tardieu (1981, p. 76) stated: “The loose fit of the articular surfaces . . . and the consequent laxity of the knee joint signify that the leg and the foot can be placed on the substrate in a much freer fashion than in Man.” This would be good for climbing, but unsatisfactory for extensive walking on the ground.

Commenting on Tardieu’s study of Lucy’s knee, Oxnard (1984, p. 334-ii) said she was led to “conclude that . . . its locking mechanism was not developed, implying that full extension of the leg in walking, a key point of human bipedality, was lacking.” Such features “suggested to Tardieu that ‘Lucy’ spent a considerable period of time climbing in the trees” (Oxnard 1984, p. 334-ii).

One can just imagine Lucy, hanging lazily from a tree limb by one of her arms, bending a small, dangling foot back from the ankle, while rotating her lower leg from the knee to bring the backward reaching foot in contact with a nearby limb.